Today: 21.Nov.2017
06.Nov.2017 Written by

John Hinderaker, POWERLINE blog: Minnesota is a poor place for solar power, so its renewable policies have focused on wind. Minnesota has gone whole hog for wind energy, to the tune of approximately $15 billion. It is noteworthy that demand for electricity in Minnesota has been flat for quite a few years, so that $15 billion wasn’t spent to meet demand. Rather, it replaced electricity that already was being produced by coal, nuclear and natural gas plants. Wind energy is intermittent and unreliable; it can only be produced when the wind is blowing within certain parameters, and cannot be stored at scale. It is expensive and inefficient, and therefore patently inferior to nuclear, coal and natural gas-powered electricity, except in one respect–its “greenness.”

04.Nov.2017 Written by

Tom Blees, President, The Science Council for Global Initiatives: The United States is indisputably a world leader in many technologies. Yet the country’s leadership role in nuclear power has been in steady decline for many years. We can reverse the nation’s slide into near irrelevance quickly, safely, and decisively without any risk to the public from the process of developing transformative new reactor designs. But nibbling at the edges of the existing system like we're doing now won’t get us there.

03.Nov.2017 Written by

The American Nuclear Society, Bob Coward, ANS President, James Conca: "Why Nuclear? Our security depends on it - national security, energy security, and economic security. Our future relies on it - environment, climate, and standard of living. Together, we will deliver." Nuclear in America is on a cusp between two very different paths. One path leads to continued global leadership. The other leads to a slow fading of our nuclear program to that of a third-rate power, leaving Russia and China to lead the world. Short-term thinking is the opposite of what a Great Nation needs to do, the opposite of what we did for most of the 20th century.

01.Nov.2017 Written by

Michel Gay: L’énergie nucléaire permet de garantir à moindre coût la sécurité d’approvisionnement en électricité de la France. Elle doit être préparée pour des scénarios plus optimistes de redressement industriel, de croissance démographique, et d’électrification de nouveaux moyens (transport, chauffage par pompe à chaleur,…).

01.Nov.2017 Written by

Michel Gay: Cette transition énergétique n'interdit donc nullement de recourir à l'électricité pour "satisfaire les besoins en énergie des citoyens et de l'économie", si elle est produite sans émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Cette électricité peut donc être utilisée dans le transport, le chauffage (pompes à chaleur) et l'industrie pour se substituer partiellement aux énergies fossiles importées de l'étranger pour une somme de plusieurs dizaines de milliards d'euros chaque année

Newsletter Subscription

  • Latest
  • Popular
  • Alan Waltar, Author of "radiation and Modern…
  • Don Robertson is the retired Managing Director…
  • Leo Gomez, Davie Brenner, Otto Raabe -…
  • Tom Hartsfield - As the supply of…
  • Mark Miller, Bobby Scott, Bert Morales, Mohan…
  • Michel Gay: Le projet de loi sur…
  • Michael Shellenberger, Environmental Progress: This presents video…
  • Michel Gay: Le nucléaire tient depuis longtemps…